AT&T Sues Verizon Over "There's A Map For That" Ads
AT&T has had it with Verizon's "there's a map for that ads" and have filed a lawsuit. The big blue death star says that the ad is misleading because while the blank spaces in Verizon's map actually show places where there is no Verizon service at all — the blank spaces in the AT&T map may still have voice and data coverage — just not "3G" coverage.
Apparently, AT&T is quite concerned that less technically savvy potential customers will look at the maps and think AT&T doesn't work in Montana or something.
Verizon has already changed the commercial to include a disclaimer that voice and data are still available in the white space on AT&T's map, and have removed a reference to AT&T customers being "out of touch." This, however, was not enough for AT&T.
From their lawsuit:
By continuing to use a "3G" coverage map in its advertisements, Verizon is still conveying the message that AT&T has no coverage in the white or blank space included in the map, and thus AT&T customers cannot use their phones in large portions of the United States.
You can read the lawsuit here.
AT&T sues Verizon over 'there's a map for that' ads [Engadget]
Post a comment
Comments:
Yes, Verizon is incorrect. AT&T quite often doesn't have coverage even in non-white or non-blank spaces in its map.
Happy to have cleared that up.
Verizon's map is very deceptive. It shows their LICENSED 3G areas, not their ACTUAL deployed signal coverage.
Come on, are we really to believe that all North and South Dakota are blanketed with Verizon 3G signals? I highly, highly doubt it. Verizon holds the licenses for the radio spectrum in these areas, but it's highly unlikely you'll get 3G everywhere you see red.
Very deceptive advertising.
"...AT&T customers cannot use their phones in large portions of the United States."
Sounds about right to me.
AT&T's complaint seems to be that Verizon is accurately depicting its (AT&T's) 3G coverage...
I don't particularly like either company, but the "there's a map for that" commercials are particularly annoying.
Sprint should jump on this bandwagon and release a map comparing its 4G coverage to Verizon to AT&T.
it's just an excuse so Verizon will stop showing how much AT&T sucks
@junip: Same goes for the "there's an app for that" commercials. It has led to many parodies and it is really annoying in general. Really? There's an app that'll let me make notes and look up words? There's games too? Is there an app to make my phone a....phone?
@wickedpixel: "While those 2 fight over 3G coverage we bring you 4G coverage", if Sprint's network is so good why are they #4?
@mralmostpopular: there's no AT&T coverage at all in North Dakota. here in my town in California AT&T has to piggyback off a tower owned by Verizon to bring us our coverage. surprisingly even tho no one knows about us and we're in the middle of nowhere we still have 3G coverage.
@dohtem: I would personally be a happy camper if either SK Telecom or KDDI bought it out. Especially after looking at KDDI service in Japan. And their phones. Solar-powered waterproof phone FTW.
Wussies!
Yeah, apparently AT&T coverage sucks even when they supposedly have coverage. We're in Cali and a girl at work w/an iPhone can't even get reception in her own house/block, but if she walks down to the next block, she does. Go figure.
I think those Verizon ads are actually kinda clever...
@egoods: that's the argument, most cell customers don't even know what 3G is. I side with Verizon on this one because AT&T needs to work on it's network and it's amount of 3G coverage instead of just sitting back then suing when someone challenges it. the only reason AT&T is #2 (besides the fact that it's crap) is that it has the iPhone. we can all agree on that one
@Duke_Newcombe sees what you did there...:
The problem is GSM has better coverage than CDMA. ATT with roaming beats verizon any day.
They might win this case since Verizon is comparing their Analog/digital/3g voice/data map with only ATTs 3g only map.
If they only compared 3g with 3g then they would have easily have gotten away with this.
This map reveals to me that AT&T, my current cellular company, has been using my monthly payments to them for the last seven years to build mansions for its executives instead of building network capability. This explains why I can barely get a signal while I'm at work, or when I go back home to visit my parents. It explains why the internet on my phone crawls along like dial-up. It explain why AT&T only recently got a signal in the DC subway system -- and then only in certain places. It explains while calls don't connect, or while they connect in only one direction.
This map reveals to me that my cell phone company sucks and maybe I should switch.
So AT&T, show me why this map isn't true. Show me your map that says you've got more 3G in more places -- instead of 1G or whatever the one that sucks is called. Don't be a whiner, don't SUE. They kicked sand in your face. Get up and kick Verizon's ass and show them, and me, why I should continue to be a customer and not switch over to them.
@consumed:
Actually, yes you will - the service in those areas are provided by roaming partners (generally), not Verizon, but a Verizon customer would get service there.
@AppleAlex:
ATT can't piggy back off a Verizon tower.
Verizon is CDMA and ATT is GSM.
Now ATT can rent space on the same tower for their equipment.
GSM has coverage all over ND and ATT has free roaming.
ATT even has some of their own towers in ND.
I love how people lie about coverage for some strange reason. [www.coveragemaps.com]
@ZukeZuke: i'll agree with you on that, genius marketing.
Also, am i the only one who thinks that the word "app" needs to go ahead and die a fiery death?
Reading these comments brought back fond memories, of circa 10 years ago, when I dumped AT&T, because their coverage sucked. In the middle of New York City.
It sucked back then, and looks like it still sucks now. Nothing's changed.
But Verizon isn't squeaky clean in my book either. They suck too, but for a different reason: their phones are all severely castrated. In Verizon-land, "Bluetooth" means "you can pair with a headset", and that's about it. On my T-mobile phone, I can upload and download pics and MP3s via bluetooth, pair the phone, etc. Can't do that with Verizon, and the latest phones my folks got from Verizon can't even use an MP3 ringtone, unless you pay those leaches a few bucks to buy one. Even though that damn phone has a micro-sd slot, and even though I can shove some .mp3 files on that, and even though the phone's dinky interface sees the MP3 files on the SD card, and can play in its crappy media player, there's just no way to select an MP3 file as a ringtone, using the phone's decrepit interface.
Screw both of them. A pox on both houses. I hope that they sue each other into bankruptcy.
Phew, just had to get this off my chest.
It's captioned, "3G".
If AT&T's potential customers are so dumb as to need further help, AT&T needs to aim higher.
@qwerty001984: well when I checked they didn't have coverage or towers there. I would've had to use GRPS or something like that which probably meant using Rogers or some other Canadian network since I would've been so close. I didn't end up going in the end
@XianZomby: they don't, they just don't want consumers knowing exactly how bad their network sucks. AT&T is the only reason I'm not getting an iPhone, and Apple says "we're very happy with AT&T and we feel they've done a lot to advertise the iPhone" which is Steve Jobs speak for "as soon as the exclusivity contract ends we're dropping the biggest divorce since the Declaration of Independence"
Is that why so many people use iPhones while they're driving? They're trying to get somewhere with a signal?
@mrsam: Yes, one of the reasons Verizon's network is so good. they dumb down their smartphones. which is why they'll never accept the iPhone without banning the app store from working on their network.
You can't even get AT&T service in the AT&T building in chicago, so who is lying when they say they have service everywhere?
@XianZomby:
Well, 1g and 2/2.5g probably both qualify for your definition of 'suck'. 'g' itself is just a term that means almost nothing in a quantifiable sense. It means generation. So its 1st generation, 2nd generation, 3rd generation. That doesn't really mean anything. 1st generation could be just talking. 2nd generation could have been connecting telepathically with each others minds if we had made some sort of crazy break through and advanced that quickly. The actual changes in technology isn't something you can know just by it being 2nd generation. Only thing you know is it should be better.
1g=talking
2/2.5g=texts and later adapted for SLOW web browsing(it was never meant to be used for that)
3g=good web browsing
@consumed: My parents and extended family are all from waaaay upstate NY, up in the mountains. I'm talking hick town, three teeth amongst the whole population. I remember when they got a Wal-Mart and everyone was excited. And they have Verizon 3G coverage. I was shocked when I found out.
Oh yeah. Didn't see this one coming...
Boys and girls, this is where all of those frivolous lawsuits you hear so much about really come from. It's not the proverbial ambulance chaser with a client who has a personal injury claim. It's a corporation with an in-house legal team or law firm on retainer (trying to justify their job or their fee) suing some other business.
This sort of thing is in the same category as the other Consumerist stories you read about Monster Cable or Monster.com clogging the courts with lame trademark infringement suits. This is why the rhetoric around so-called tort reform is so screwed up. All of the "reforms" restrict the ability of individuals to pursue their grievances in court and do nothing to constrain the behavior of the large businesses responsible for filling court dockets with BS.
@mrsam: Verizon crippling phones. That's why I stay with AT&T and with GSM also. I liek the freedom of moving my SIM chip from handset to handset. I like being able to flash the software on my handset and debrand it (although that's probably a Sony Ericcson thing, not an AT&T thing) I like that AT&T offers me the subsidy unlock code at the end of my contract, so I can give my AT&T GSM phone to my mom, who can then use it on T-Mobile. I like that AT&T doesn't cripple features (not so much) on my phones, and then try to call it a convienience.
But I still think their network sucks.
@OmniZero: I think so- didn't Vonage put an app on there? (Which made me laugh- it's an app so I can use my phone as a... phone? Okay.)
@Al Swearengen: In DC, people spend a lot of time stuck in the tunnels of the DC Metro/subway. Up until mid last month, the only cellular service that worked in the tunnles and stations was Verizon -- becasue they had an exclusive contract to install antennas underground. So the end result is that while your trains is stuck in a tunnel underneath the Potomac, the Verizon customers could talk on their cell phones or text message, while the AT&T customers could read the on-board advertising from AT&T about how their service is in more places than anybody else.
This seems as good a place as any to update my Verizon saga...
My house is apparently on the edge of some old Verizon networking map. The signal strength from the nearest Verizon tower is incredibly weak, but there's great signal from a nearby Alltel tower. The tech said that they'd re-sync our phones (whatever that means) to attach to the nearby Alltel tower. (I'm afraid that i will then only attach to alltel towers, giving me poor reception everywhere else)
@consumed: My family is from Wyoming (and I have to drive through the Dakotas to visit). I'm not sure about 3G, but I know we ALL have Verizon because a lot of the time that's the only service you can get (and you don't want to be driving through South Dakota in December wo/ cell coverage).
Simple solution - if Verizon wants to prevent any confusion, they could just use one color for AT&T 3G and one color for AT&T non-3G service. The blank areas of the map would give the impression that there is no service to someone who doesn't understand what 3G refers to, which is probably more than half of the people in this country.
@XianZomby: AT&T's urban coverage has greatly improved in the last few years. They are focusing on areas with a large population instead of raw area.
Besides, at my mother in law's house AT&T is all that works, not Sprint or Verizon. Haven't tested t-mobile recently enough, they may or may not have a roaming agreement.
I used to have to use AMPS, but GSM started working around the time AMPS was finally laid to rest.
@qwerty001984: I could throw my cell phone out my apartment window and hit the AT&T national headquarters and I still don't have service about 50% of the time.
@dohtem: Our company recently switched all its cell phones from Verizon to Sprint. Hundreds of them.
That lasted about ten days. Then we all went back to Verizon.
most cell customers don't even know what 3G is.
Verizon is also a little confused about what 3G is. What Verizon is describing as 3G service on their super-red map is CDMA (1x), which is actually closer to AT&T's EDGE network (2.5G). For the AT&T map they're using W-CDMA(HSPA+ 14.4mb/s). So they're comparing their 2G (or 2.5G) service to ATT 3.5G service area, in terms of speed. What they should be comparing themselves to is AT&T's EDGE coverage map. The slowest of AT&T's 3G service is faster than Verizons EVDO service.
Whatever, basic coverage with AT&T is actually pretty bad. In Chicago there are tons of dead zones and I got absolutely none in the state of Maine. It's 2009, how is that possible?
Except it says "5X more 3G Coverage" in giant letters at the bottom. even my parents can figure that out.